President’s Proposed Energy Security Trust Could Help, But Much More Needed to Address Oil Use

During President Obama’s State of the Union address, he spoke to the importance of cutting America’s oil use. As part of that, he proposed the creation of an Energy Security Trust that would use revenues from oil and gas production to invest in research for clean vehicle technology. The goal: to “shift our cars and trucks off oil for good” and “free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long.”

So, would a proposed trust help or hurt efforts to cut oil use? Or is it too soon to tell?

It’s complicated

A blueprint released by the White House outlined the research areas that may benefit from the trust. Based on that, the trust fund could help provide much-needed resources to improve technologies, like hydrogen fuel cell and battery electric vehicles and low-carbon biofuels, that can curb oil use in our cars and trucks. But I want to lay out a few key questions that need to be addressed if the concept moves forward.

Will the trust really bring new R&D money?

Funding for Energy Research and Development has been too small for too long. But some questions need to be explored before we know how much the President’s Energy Security Trust will help.*

Based on a White House official cited in a New York Times blog, the trust could raise $200 million a year for the Department of Energy. Given that the DoE’s main energy efficiency and renewable energy research office (EERE) has a potential 2013 budget of about $2 billion, the trust could represent a 10 percent increase overall, and a 25 percent boost if you look only at their transportation related budget.

A 25 percent boost in transportation R&D seems like a big step forward, but the EERE might never see that money even if the trust idea gains traction. Why? Well, in the current fiscal atmosphere, I could easily see some in Congress arguing to cut EERE appropriations by the exact same amount generated by the trust. That would be a mistake, resulting in no real benefit for clean energy/tech development.

How will the trust impact drilling?

The trust sets up an interesting paradigm: funding R&D on ways to cut oil use but using oil money to do it. Could this funding structure bring with it unintended consequences of increasing pressure for drilling?

More drilling would certainly benefit the oil companies—$33 out of every $50 you spend at the pump is taken in by oil companies—but it would not help the rest of us. Oil companies will sell what they drill to the highest bidder in the U.S. or around the world (either as oil or as a refined product like diesel or gasoline), so we won’t see any significant relief at the pump. All we’ll see is more pollution and an economy that remains vulnerable to oil and gasoline price spikes.

So what should the President do on oil?

The President’s statement that he will act to protect future generations from climate change if Congress does not is key to those steps. He already has the authority to set smart and strong standards to cut emissions and oil use from cars, trucks, trains, planes, and ships, which would go a long way towards saving consumers money and truly insulating us from the high costs of oil.

This means the President will have to build on the impressive progress he’s already made on cars and trucks, while working to make even more progress on both and introducing standards for other parts of the transportation sector. He will also have to reinvigorate and expand advanced vehicle technology manufacturing grants and loans and support for better biofuels. It is not enough to do the research; we also need to get clean car and fuel technologies “Made in America” and on our roads. And all of this requires Americans to speak up and urge the President to dramatically cut oil use.

At the end of the day, the trust could contribute to progress, but many questions remain. What is clear is that more drilling will not address the problems our oil use presents to our economy, our health, our national security, or our environment. The only way to address the problems of our oil use is to use a lot less.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

Felix

If we are talking about emission-free, clean energy that is continuous and capable of supplanting fossil fuels, then the singular solution, in one word, is nuclear. If we want to seriously put a dent on greenhouse gas emissions and halt global climate change, again the singular solution, in one word, is nuclear.

Not the same uranium-based, water-cooled nuclear technology that we grew up and continue to live with, but a newer, safer, does-not-need-to-sit-by-a-river power plant. You mean a nuclear reactor that can be viable in the middle of a bone-dry desert? How can that be? Is that magic? What is this “new” reactor design? It is called a thorium reactor, or more accurately, a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR, reads as “lifter”), and it was invented here in the U.S.

Wind and solar energy are not exactly clean. They require vast acres of land and long, land-grabbing transmission lines to bring to utilization. And when there’s no wind and there’s no sun, the lights go out. Even with vast government subsidies, wind and solar are adjuncts at best.

“The world desperately needs sustainable, low-carbon energy to address climate change while lifting people out of poverty. Thorium-based reactors, such as those designed by the late Alvin Weinberg, could radically change perceptions of nuclear power leading to widespread deployment.” — Baroness Worthington